Author: admin

  • Lord Knight of Weymouth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Knight of Weymouth – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Knight of Weymouth on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord O’Neill of Gatley on 1 February (HL5090 and HL5091), whether they will now provide the direct link to that information, and why they did not provide that link in those answers.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The relevant information is available at “Box A5.6D : money transmission services ranked in order of choice” in the Treasury guidance on “Managing Public Money”.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have an agreement or understanding with the IRA that there will be no attempts to stop or bring to court its members on charges relating to tax fraud in South Armagh.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The government does not have any agreement or understanding in place with the IRA.

  • Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Baroness McIntosh of Pickering – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on farmers and rural businesses of poor broadband provision in rural areas.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    This Government recognises that all businesses need access to reliable, fast broadband to compete, innovate, increase productivity and have access to Government digital services. Superfast broadband now covers almost 90% of UK premises and this will increase to 95% by the end of next year as a result of the Government’s Superfast Broadband Programme and further commercial delivery. Premises everywhere including rural areas which do not have speeds of at least 2 Megabits per second are able to access a subsidised broadband service, usually delivered through a satellite connection, which can deliver speeds of 10Mbps or more.

    The Prime Minister has also announced the Government’s intention to implement a new broadband Universal Service Obligation (USO) and our ambition to set this at 10Mbps. This new broadband USO will give people the legal right to request an affordable broadband connection, at a minimum speed, up to a reasonable cost threshold, no matter where they live.

  • Baroness Quin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Quin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Quin on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the average waiting time for a result to be given of a DEXA bone density scan in each NHS region in England; and what assessment they have made of the average waiting time for such results in (1) Scotland, and (2) Wales.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Data are not collected on the average waiting time for a result to be given for a dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan. Data are collected on the average waiting time from referral to test, and these are shown in the following table for the four NHS England commissioning regions for most recent period, which is November 2015. Health is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales.

    Table: average median waiting times in weeks for a DEXA scan from referral by NHS England commissioning region, November 2015

    Region

    Number of weeks

    North of England

    2.1

    Midlands and East of England

    1.7

    London

    1.8

    South of England

    1.8

    England

    1.9

  • Baroness Quin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness Quin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Quin on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultations took place with the government of New Zealand prior to their decision to introduce new charges for New Zealand citizens for health and dental treatment in the UK from 6 April.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    On 6 April 2015 the United Kingdom introduced an immigration health surcharge for non-European Economic Area nationals who come to the UK to temporarily reside for a period of over six months. At the time New Zealand nationals were granted a temporary exemption and we entered into a series of discussions with the New Zealand Government on the introduction of the surcharge for its nationals. The Secretary of State for Health wrote to the New Zealand High Commissioner confirming introduction of the surcharge on 17 December 2015. Introduction of the surcharge for New Zealand nationals was publicly announced by the Home Office on 4 February 2016 and subject to Parliamentary approval, it will come into effect from 6 April 2016.

  • Baroness Quin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Quin – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Quin on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the start-up and annual costs of administering the new health and dental charges for New Zealand citizens coming into force on 6 April.

    Lord Bates

    An Impact Assessment was published on 4 February 2016, alongside the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016. The draft Order will, subject to Parliamentary approval, remove the surcharge exemption for nationals of Australia and New Zealand and reduce the Youth Mobility Scheme charge from £200 to £150.

    The Impact Assessment, which can be viewed at the link below, sets out the reason for these changes and estimates associated costs and benefits: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2016/9780111143278/impacts

    These documents are available in the following locations of the House: The Vote Office (Commons) Printed Paper Office (Lords)

  • Viscount Ridley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Viscount Ridley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Viscount Ridley on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the finding of the report An Unholy Mess, published by the Fair Admissions Campaign and the British Humanist Association last year, that a number of religiously selective schools have sought to require all parents to commit to supporting the particular religious ethos of the school as part of the admission process; and what assessment they have made of the impact of any such practice on the encouragement of applications from a diverse range of religious and non-religious backgrounds.

    Lord Nash

    I refer the Noble Lord to my response to questions HL5900 and HL5901, submitted to Parliament on 18 February 2016.

  • Baroness Scott of Needham Market – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Baroness Scott of Needham Market – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Scott of Needham Market on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take to ensure that council tax billing authorities pass on to parish and town councils the council tax support funding provided for those councils by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    Local Council Tax Support schemes are designed and implemented by billing authorities. It is for them to determine the appropriate amount to pass on to parish and town councils. Ultimately, these are local decisions based on local circumstances, so where money is not passed down, the authority must justify their decision to local taxpayers.

  • Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Israel regarding its latest land appropriation in the Jordan Valley.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We have not raised this issue with the Israeli authorities. However, we have been clear that Area C (including a significant proportion of the Jordan Valley) is an integral part of a future Palestinian State. Our Consul-General in Jerusalem recently authored an article in the Israeli press about Area C. Officials from our Consulate General have also hosted several events in Area C, including in the Jordan Valley, highlighting our support for Palestinian communities in Area C.

  • Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Tonge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Tonge on 2016-02-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Israel regarding the continued detention of Mohammed al-Qeeq, currently on hunger strike, without charge or trial.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    While we have not made any representations on this specific case, officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv are following this case and those of the other hunger strikers closely and have spoken to Amnesty International about them. Officials from our Consulate General in Jerusalem maintain a dialogue with the relevant Palestinian organisations about the condition of the hunger strikers. The EU in Jerusalem recently issued a local statement on administrative detentions, including the case of Mr Al Qeeq. We have been informed that Mr al-Qeeq is in a stable condition and has not been forced-fed as alleged.

    We remain concerned about Israel’s extensive use of administrative detention which, according to international law, should be used only when security makes this absolutely necessary rather than as routine practice, and as a preventive rather than a punitive measure.